greenbs

I don't think I have enough context to appreciate this movie as much as someone more familiar with 70's Japanese surrealistic horror, but if you go into this movie understanding that it does not take itself too seriously (and neither should you), it is a thoroughly enjoyable roller coaster that is wholly original, even 50 years later. Even though I think at its heart it's more silly comedy than horror, it is incredibly well directed. The work that must have gone into the visuals is absolutely staggering (especially considering this was done on film), and the gags are elevated by the effort on display. I would compare it a bit to Edgar Wright, not in terms of method, but in the fact that every frame and edit is intentional and filled to the brim with meaning and references. Sure, it's a bit dated in some of its effects, but that just adds to the charm.

I think there is also quite a lot more to the story than I was able to glean on first watch, so I'll definitely be watching it again.

Though I did vote for her in 2016 (a really, REALLY obvious choice), I was never a huge fan of Hillary. There's no particular reason for that dislike outside of liking other politicians/candidates better, but I also fall into that category of people for whom she just "rubbed the wrong way."

That said, as someone who grew up in a very conservative state and has a very conservative parent, I can tell you that there may not be a modern US political figure who has had their character assassinated quite like Hillary Clinton. Regardless of what you think about her politics or whether or not she's relatable, it is absolutely stunning the things that have been said about her without ANY basis in objective reality. Things get said about lots of politicians, but I think the difference is the degree for which people actually BELIEVE what is said about Hillary.

Think of it this way: A sizable chunk of the population actually thought that Trump was a safer and more stable choice than Hillary in 2016, that Hillary would get us into a war and destabilize the nation and this and that. There are those who STILL believe that, even after witnessing the clown car that has been this administration the last 3.5 years. I have to think that was possible, and least in substantial part, because the right has attacked her consistently for literal decades with so much ridiculous slander, libel, misrepresentations, and outright sensationalist defamation that even when she did things worthy of legitimate criticism, it just gets lost in the noise.

Again, regardless of her politics, I think any one of us can understand the desire to "set the record straight" if we were similarly defamed as she was and continues to be. Though the show is a bit too self-indulgent from time to time and occasionally glosses over certain subjects, the main thing it did for me is show that there's an actual person behind the politician, and I think she is generally sincere about most of what she says but just doesn't have a great public persona.

You can either believe that she's a lizard person capable of murder and incapable of feeling (while simultaneously being one of the best actors in the world), or that she's a politician who generally wants to do good but has made mistakes; but if you're going to go through life thinking she's the spawn of Satan, you can at least watch the documentary and hear it from the "horse's mouth" and decide for yourself instead of just letting your favorite pundit feed you more carefully curated and spun bull****. Your choice.

How have we ended up with antivaxxers? How have we ended up with climate change deniers? How have we ended up with so much political polarization that many modern governments can barely function? It's media and pseudoscience like this that leads the way. It's talking heads saying "don't listen to the professionals in their field or their consensus, listen to me" who feed us information from a false position of authority that does the damage. And these "authorities" do so by saying (or pretending) they have some level of scientific or objective data to back them up, when in reality they usually don't even understand the science they claim supports their conclusions.

No, I'm not saying that The Goop Lab or Goop or Gwyneth Paltrow are solely responsible for all the world's woes, that would be silly. But the continual legitimization and propagation of both pseudoscience (i.e. not science) and the misrepresentation of real science has slowly (but very surely) chipped away at our collective ability to think critically and judge based on facts and quantitative/qualitative analysis instead of feeling. It's not even the average person's fault, honestly. There's just so much NOISE thrown at everyone that it can be incredibly difficult to sift through everything to find the underlying (and unadulterated) facts.

This is compounded by the (appropriate) nature of (most) scientists to be very careful with their words and analysis in order to remain open to the idea that they could be wrong and to be objective as possible (this is where many people conflate "theory" with "the jury is still out"), which can be frustrating to those who demand simple answers to complex questions. But when you have a supposed "expert" say from an unearned platform of legitimacy that "there's scientific research to support energy healing," the people who want energy healing to exist will say "I knew it!", even though there's no evidence of it outside of a general placebo effect. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It feels true to the person who wants it to be true, and they will now go on believing and telling everyone that there is at least some scientific evidence for something when there is none.

However, what is particularly insidious about The Goop Lab, aside from the attempts to claim scientific legitimacy for ideas that have none, is that they actually do pepper in ideas that have some merit (though the "scientific experiments" they perform are about as scientific as a seance). For instance, there is a real argument to be made and much more research to be done concerning the use of hallucinogens for medicinal purposes, but that episode and those like it are used to lure the viewer in before they then attempt to legitimize things like PSYCHICS, a "field" of study that has been debunked over and over and over again. That is irresponsible, dangerous, and frankly, immoral.

Some might ask "well, what's the harm in someone believing in psychics or energy healing, even if it's just for the placebo effect" The first answer is obvious: Charlatans and con artists can and do use pseudoscience to take advantage of the vulnerable, sometimes with disastrous (and/or lethal) consequences. The other consequence is more subtle, though arguably more dangerous. When a person is made to believe that there is empirical evidence for something when there is none, especially when it's something they really want to believe and is entangled with their personal identity, they may begin to distrust those experts who say otherwise. It becomes easier to say "it doesn't matter that there's a consensus on this issue, they've been wrong before" for any bit of information that is inconvenient, scary, or makes us question our identify. For obvious reasons, I'd say this is an exceptionally dangerous mindset.

Goop may not be wholly responsible for the slow decay of objective reality we have today, but it certainly contributes greatly to it. Gweneth Paltrow, Goop, and Netflix should be ashamed of themselves, and I'm sure they'll cry themselves to sleep on their piles of money.